The Volkswagen Beetle? (A car everyone could afford)
As Oblong said if Hitler died before he started the war he would be remembered as one of Germanys greatest leaders.
Most people have a hard time separating the Nazis evilness from their accomplishments (Not the word I’m looking for but hopefully you get the idea).
Any person who goes from being a beggar to ruling most of Europe is certainly extraordinary even if he is one of the most evil people to walk the earth.
Zenster, well said.
Perhaps I will check out that book.
[small hijack]
Sorry, I have to take issue with this. There are no even remotely funny episodes of The Three Stooges.
[/small hijack]
Sorry, I couldn’t let that pass. - Back to the issue at hand.
Yes, Oblong, the Autobahn is “good”, but it’s only a road. The Volkswagon was “good”, but it’s only a car. Those are little, OK, good things. In fact, I wouldn’t really consider them good things as much as not-bad or neutral things.
If Clinton commissioned a road would we be calling him a “good” President because of it regardless of what else he did? Some probably would, but I don’t feel that the majority would be swayed by a road. And Clinton is god, himself, compared to Hitler.
Perhaps I need to rethink my idea of what qualifies as good. And, I know that my attitude is colored by who we are talking about and what he did. Because, short of some cure for cancer or the like, I cannot think of what I would accept as “good” from the Nazis. You would really have to show me something spectacular.
No, no, no, no.
We are not going to debate in General Questions whether the Nazi’s produced some usable items.
The OP was limited to whether the nazi experiments on humans produced usable medical information. From the thread it appears that the General Questions answer to that question is either “no” or “ethical scientists do not use the data because of the source” or both.
Zen, your post was correct in all respects save one. We do not chastize people for asking questions around here. If someone had given an answer like “yes, but those sucky scientists won’t use the data”, it may have been appropriate to wish Hitler’s experiments on that person, which is what you did to the OP. Even then, it would be appropriate in the Pit, not GQ.
The perception has nothing to do with the question. I don’t think anyone has seriously posed the idea that we should be grateful that these experiments were done or in any way minimized the pain and suffereing that was forced upon the victims.
Detailing the horrific tortures they did, in fact, undergo is not only absolutely irrelevant to the question that was asked, but disingenuous. It seems that you’re equating the question about what happened to the information to some sort of implicit approval of the activities that produced the information. As it stands, it’s a valid question: Was the information gathered from those experiments and tortures medically “accurate” and was part (or all) of that information incorporated into the medical science establishment of the rest of the world following the war? Given that this is General Questions and not Great Debates the factual nature of the question seems appropriate to me. Had the question been “Should the information have been used?” perhaps your moral outrage would have been more understandable.
A) The OP concerned itself with a purely factual question, not a discussion about the relative value of the information relative to the suffering of the victims. Since when is asking a factual question about history something to be avoided? I would think the more people that know the travesty that occured the better, particularly if it makes people realize the horrors that were perpetrated upon innocent people in the guise of “Medical Research”.
B) That said, if you still find it objectionable, don’t watch the discussion.
I’m not a Mod, but it didn’t seem obtuse to me. Just filled with venom and hate.
For the record I was being sarcastic with the Autobahn reference, I know it’s only a road. Guess I need to insert 
I wasnt being sarcastic with the Three Stooges reference. Anyone who thinks the Stooges aren’t funny gets 2 shots to the back of the head, no questions asked.
I started a thread here in GD that addresses the larger questions raised by this thread. Take the debate there so we can fight ignorance in this one.
Another point here is that it’s questionable as to how “medical” these experiments were. Torturing people to death and then calling it “research” doesn’t make it so any more than taking notes during the inquistion.
Just a comment.
Unfortunately I have no information regarding whether or not Nazi doctors provided any valuable information. However, IMHO, I think it would be short-sighted to automatically assume (and dismiss) ALL Nazi medical experiments due to the sole fact that many (or most) were simply as a cover story for sick, inhuman acts.
Recall that the U.S. Government performed numerous experiments on military personnel without their consent at around the same time, yet we do not necessarily invalidate all those results, correct? Reasonably, only those experiments whose results have been clearly doctored or falsified should be totally discarded.
True, but those notes would be part of the historical record and could reasonably be used to verify that a certain person was burned at the stake on a certain day. If a particular piece of data is correct, the method with which it was obtained or recorded does not change its validity.
I do casualty estimates for the US military. During the research phase of our “human tolerance” data gathering effort we were offered some nazi data. We didn’t accept the offer. I didn’t see the nazi data, but I doubt it would have been useful, there’s plenty of data about gunshot wounds.
The real goldmine of data to come out of WWII was the British data gathered during the London air raids. They were meticulous about gathering data concerning every bomb that fell on London, including the location of uninjured people who were near the bomb. The data was gathered originally to find better ways to protect people, and led to the development of the Anderson shelter.
The injury descriptions were very thorough, one description said the person was “blown to bits” another said the person was “nearly blown to bits”, I wonder what the distinction was.
First off this is my opinion and mine alone. I know some people will think me a jerk (or something less PG) but this is what I think. Also I found this while researching for results of Nazi Experiment; which, by the way are really hard to find. (Unless you are looking for the number of deaths.)
While I believe that, the conditions in which the experiments took place were not exactly the best and may have influenced the experiments in one way or another. However, to really understand why they did these things you must look at it from their prospective.
That said, what do you think they wanted to accomplish with these experiments?
I believe, these experiments were conducted as an attempt to come up with better and more effective ways to treat the injuries soldiers received on the battlefield; develop vaccines and medications for the diseases that are encountered on the battlefield; and to discover the limits on the endurance of the human body (so they know how hard to push the German Soldiers).
As for the original question.
I believe the results of those test are still useful today. Why? Some might ask. Well because modern day scientists and physicians can look over the results of all experiment and see what did work and what did not work. This could help in developing newer medications, surgery techniques, and vaccines.
Now being that I am not in the medical profession I don’t know if all the found information has been exhausted or not but that is what I think.
Sorry for the length but I have been wanting to say that for a long time.
Zombies + Nazi medical experiments: not such an odd combination.
There’s a whole GQ waiting for why guys think the Stooges, all 4 to 6 of them, are hilarious; while women see no humour at all. Nyuk Nyuk.
Apparently.
Thank you for this post.
Is 10 years 4 months the record?
No, there have been ones from 1999 I think.
Could someone fill me in on what experiments they ACTUALLY carried out, then the next step could be to see if the data has been used within the science community. .
It seems to be a lot of anecdotals (my teacher said this, I heard that etc.) in this discussion, It would be interesting if anyone could be more specific and maybe even come up with a cite.
Personally, I think if they had figured out how to transplant a human head on a gorilla’s body, that would have cool.
… but vice-versa would just leave you all “meh…” ?
I’ll offer a bunch, but with the caveat that this is a very gruesome subject.
In this thread from 2006 , I cited five or six online sources, and two or three books, and the consensus from the scientific community is pretty clear:
Here are a couple of readily available sources, none of which are goulishly graphic in their descriptions. (IMHO).
The Jewish Virtual Library has some good details on each of the “experiments”, including links to and excerpts from source documents.
This link has a pretty good overview and discusses the scientific validity of the experiments.
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum has an online exhibit, which includes trasnscripts from Nuremberg. Some of this is probably more detail than most are comfortable with, but much of it is not.
The thread I mentioned above has links to reports that are disturbingly graphic, which I only recommend to those folks who aren’t thoroughly convinced by the safer versions.